AMARJEET RANA & ORS. vs GULSHAN VERMA (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + EFA(COMM) 20/2025 & CM APPL. 71798/2025, CM APPL. 71799/2025 AMARJEET RANA & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Natwar Rai, Adv. Versus GULSHAN VERMA (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sudeep Kumar, Adv. with Mr. Babul Kumar Jha, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 17.11.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 24 September 2025 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court) in Execution (Comm) 292/20231. 2. By the impugned order, the learned Commercial Court has directed warrants of attachment to be issued in respect of the property situated at T-126, Near Sanatan Dharam Mandir, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi-110 0082, in exercise of the powers conferred by order XXI 1 Gulshan Verma v Shanti Mahato 2 “the suit property” hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT EFA(COMM) 20/2025 Page 1 of 7 KUMAR Signing Date:20.11.2025 12:51:54 Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19083. 3. The execution proceedings arose out of a money decree dated 1 September 2016 passed in favour of Gulshan Verma4, and against Shanti Mahato5. By the money decree, Shanti was required to pay an amount of ₹ 19,01,000/- to Gulshan w.e.f. 1 September 2016 till realisation, along with pendente lite and future interest. 4. In the execution proceedings, Gulshan, as the decree holder, submitted that Shanti had failed to comply with decree and that an amount of ₹ 35 lakhs was outstanding. 5. In the interregnum, Shanti had also filed RFA(COMM) 197/2023 before this Court, challenging the decree dated 1 September 2016, which came to be dismissed. 6. The matter was apparently not carried further. Thus, the judgment and